Constitutional Law, Politics, Religion, Society

Air Force Bars Atheist From Reenlisting Unless He Signs And Orally Repeats an Oath To God

1280px-Oath_of_enlistment_·_DF-ST-91-07705150px-Seal_of_the_US_Air_Force.svgThere is an interesting case of religious freedom that has arisen at Creech Air Force base in Nevada where an unnamed airman has been told that he will not be allowed to re-enlist because he does not want to take an oath including the words “so help me God.” He is an atheist and, for obvious reasons, finds the words objectionable. Curiously, despite that fact that he clearly does not believe in God, the Air Force wants him to swear to God as a condition for his serving his country. It is not only a violation of this constitutional rights under the First Amendment but an offense to the many atheists who have served and continue to serve our country.

The American Humanist Association has complained to the Air Force Inspector General that the rule not only violates First Amendment but also Article VI, which bars using a religious test as qualification to any office or public trust of the United States.

The Air Force insists that they have no leeway because the oath is contained in a statute. Notably, however, the Air Force used to allow airmen to omit the words but changed the policy during the Obama Administration. The old version of Air Force Instruction 36-2606 included an exception: “Note: Airmen may omit the words ‘so help me God,’ if desired for personal reasons.” The change in 2013 requires that even atheist be forced to swear to God as a condition for service.

In this case, the airman simply crossed out the phrase “so help me God.” He was told that who have to both sign a statement swearing to God and then recite those words.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. 502, states:

§502. Enlistment oath: who may administer
(a) Enlistment Oath.—Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
“I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Notably, if this goes to court, the airman would not be required to swear to God on a bible as an atheist. Instead, he is allowed to attest that his testimony will be true under an alternative to the religious oath:

If any person of whom an oath is required shall claim religious scruples against taking the same, the word “swear” and the words “so help you God” may be omitted from the foregoing forms, and the word “affirm” and the words “and this you do under the penalties of perjury” shall be substituted therefor, respectively, and such person shall be considered, for all purposes, as having been duly sworn.

The refusal to accommodate the religious beliefs of this service member is deeply disturbing and contravenes core American values. He should challenge the rule under the Declaratory Judgment Act in federal court. He will then doubly serve his country in standing against not just enemies from without but those within our country who refuse to respect the religious or non-religious views of all citizens.

Source: Air Force Times as first seen on ABA Journal

850 thoughts on “Air Force Bars Atheist From Reenlisting Unless He Signs And Orally Repeats an Oath To God”

  1. I reject your “feeble excuse’ excuse. The law had been declared unconstitutional. There was no reason to get a new ID until three days ago.

    Hell, you’re a politically interested guy and you weren’t even aware that this important case was chugging along in the courts. Now you’re going to lecture 300,000 mostly elderly and poor Wisconsinites that they weren’t being proactive and following the news of the federal courts? Puleese!

    And how does it follow that I must be in favor of a state issue photo ID by asserting that I am not in favor of allowing just anyone to vote? Two different topics. An example – I am not in favor of allowing people who live in Ohio to vote in Indiana. Your question was limited. Don’t assume it follows that I want a photo ID

    And I submit that a state that has such very restricted DMV hours clearly demonstrates that that state is deliberately creating undue burdens for a citizen to secure the required ID. That is called voter suppression And it should make a military officer gag.

  2. Okay, so this law was on the books for an early 2012 primary and has since been in this legal tug-of-war? Why in the world would any of the 300,000 without the necessary ID sit around for 2+ years hoping on a decision in their favor? How concerned could they be about voting if they were willing to risk not being able to vote?

    DocMadison,
    I still don’t agree with your claim this was a GOP-initiated effort to disenfranchise voters by requiring voter ID. The charge is clearly politically motivated and a really poor effort to shift the blame from voters unwilling to take responsibility for participation in the franchise.

    That being said; the absentee ballots sent out without ID instructions will be problematic for this election cycle.

    1. I went to the dmv in WI and their offices seem to be open 8-4:45 M-F. Not sure what the problem is.

  3. David this is just one of your comments: “No circular reasoning, unless you don’t understand the distinctions in the terms I use”. i.e.your ability to discern distinctions is good and because I (or others) disagree with you, ours is not.

    1. leejcaroll wrote: “David this is just one of your comments: “No circular reasoning, unless you don’t understand the distinctions in the terms I use”. i.e.your ability to discern distinctions is good and because I (or others) disagree with you, ours is not.”

      I was just trying to draw your attention to the difference between “endorse” and “accommodate.” You claimed I made no sense and that my reasoning was circular. I could not see what you were getting at, unless you thought endorse and accommodate had exactly the same meaning. So I explained the difference in those words, and if you still found my statement meaningless and circular, you could explain to me what you were seeing. In no way was I implying that you are less intelligent than me. I was just expanding upon my thought processes and suggesting that perhaps you read those terms as being equivalent while I saw a distinction. I gave the example of Jefferson and Univ. of Virginia, explaining what he did and didn’t do in regards to religion there.

  4. Olly,

    It was under appeal after a federal judge had held that the law was unconstitutional. A three judge panel overturned that ruling just last week some six weeks before election day.

    Look at the WI DMV hours (who have more duties than issuing state IDs and VERY restricted hours) and you tell me that they can possibly issue everyone an ID that makes an application.

  7. As I understand it, the law wouldn’t have been allowed to go forward the way originally written. The court stipulated that the IDs be free, this was not the case before this went federal court.

  9. Docmadison,
    You indicated above you don’t support allowing just anyone to vote in your state. Logically that means you support proof of proper citizenship,residency and most importantly LIFE. A government-issued photo ID is a logical extension of that proof. Demonstrate no amount of effort will allow this to be accomplished and you’ll have a legitimate case but the responsibility to attempt to get the ID is on the voter.

  10. How long has the law been on the books? Why have any of the 300k not anticipated this would be required and made every effort to get one? It seems to be a very feeble excuse and clearly NOT evidence of an attempt to disenfranchise.

  11. Docmadison is correct. How can 300,000 be expected to get state IDs when here are only three days in which to get them in total, in certain DMVs throughout the state?

  13. Olly,

    Some aren’t open three days a week.

    As I wrote – some are open only three days TOTAL until election day.

    Not three days a week – although there are some that are only open three days a week – and some that are open only two days a week – and some that are only open three Wednesdays every month – and some that are open only one day a week.

    I consider this solid proof that the Republicans are disenfranchising a lot of voters.

  14. Docmadison,
    Indicating the DMV is only open 3 days a week isn’t proof Republicans want to disenfranchise the 300K voters without a government issued ID. Now, if they require ID and won’t provide a reasonable means for the voters to acquire it then that would certainly be grounds for your claim.

  15. Paul C

    I’m glad you’re reassured about your vote. I bet those 300,000 people in WI wish they were able to have your same confidence in their vote.

    Now that your vote is safe, maybe you should take a look at the folks in your state who would like to do some… eh…’unusual’ things in your name

    1. docmadison –

      Now that your vote is safe, maybe you should take a look at the folks in your state who would like to do some… eh…’unusual’ things in your name

      I have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

  16. Olly,

    Review WI 300,000 voters are without state IDs Some DMVs are open only 3 days TOTAL until voting day WI solidly governed by Republicans and they wrote the law and defended it in court The three judges who lifted the injunction last week are all Republicans. Wisconsin, Olly, Wisconsin. The entire Republicans leadership of Wisconsin.

    And no, Olly. I do not support extending voting rights to any person that wishes to participate.

    1. docmadison – Arizona uses Voter ID and I had my ID checked for the first time by computer this time. It was very cool. I felt my vote was very protected.

  17. “Voting rights are not unalienable and the Republicans have no trouble at all eliminating them.”

    Docmadison,
    Prove it. Provide the evidence that proves Republicans want to eliminate the voting rights of any verified eligible person. And conversely, do you support extending voting rights to any person that wishes to participate?

  18. PaulC.

    How unlike you to play the ‘I don’t know a thing about it’ card – and for a prominent legislator in your own state…..amazing. Well, here ya go:

    Russell K. Pearce (born June 23, 1947) is an American politician and former Republican Arizona state senator. He rose to national prominence as the primary sponsor of Arizona SB1070, a controversial anti-illegal alien measure that was signed into law in 2010. He was elected President of the Arizona Senate when the Senate began its current term in January 2011, but then suffered a dramatic reversal of fortune when he was ousted in a November 2011 recall election, the first legislator in Arizona history to be so removed.[1] He served as Vice-Chair of the Arizona GOP, but in September 2014 resigned the position after controversy over his recommendation of forced sterilization of poor women on Medicaid.[2]

    1. docmadison – he is not in my district so I do not worry about him. But thanks for the info.

  19. Quite right, Olly. Voting rights are not unalienable and the Republicans have no trouble at all eliminating them.

    And it is interesting in how you prefer to make me the enabler rather than the leadership of the Republican Party. Until you changed it to…..both sides do it.

    Horsepuckey. It’s the Republicans who are doing it. Start interviewing small town sheriffs, authoritarian cops, the WI, MO, and KS state legislatures, where unalienable rights go to die. They’re all Republicans.

  20. I was going to say you cannot limit your review of government action simply by party action. Abusive government occurs across the political spectrum.

Comments are closed.